FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   494   495   496   497   498   499   500   501   502   503   504   505   506   507   508   509   510   511   512   513   514   515   516   517   518  
519   520   521   522   523   524   525   526   527   528   529   530   531   532   533   534   535   536   537   538   539   540   541   542   543   >>   >|  
ich all were conscious. Every party of Commonwealth's men accused every other party of a design to bring the King in, and every party so accused repudiated the charge with such strength of language as to beget the suspicion, "The Lady protests too much, methinks." On the other hand, the uneasy common consciousness disposed people to be practically somewhat tolerant. When no one knew what might happen to himself, why should he indict his neighbour for treason? On some such ground it may have been, as well as to try to win grace with the Presbyterians or new Royalists, that the present Government did not proceed with the trials of the lords and gentlemen committed for high treason for their concern in the late Insurrection, but released all or most of them. Lords Northampton, Falkland, Herbert, Howard, and others had been released November 1, and Sir George Booth himself was set at liberty on the 9th of December.[1] [Footnote 1: Thurloe, VII. 708, 727, 743, 753-4, 775, and 802; Whitlocke, IV. 369, 377, and 378; Clarendon, 872-877; Guizot, I. 211-215; Letters of M. de Bordeaux, in Appendix to Guizot, II. 288, 294, and 298; Order Books of Council of State, Aug. 23 and Oct. 13, 1659.] In the matter of a new Constitution for the future the procedure of the Committee of Safety had been not uninteresting. On the 1st of November they had referred the subject to a sub-committee, consisting of Vane, Whitlocke, Fleetwood, Ludlow, Salway, and Tichbourne; and on this sub-committee Ludlow did consent to act. In fact, however, the General Committee and the Wallingford-House Council kept along with the Sub-Committee in the great discussion.[1] [Footnote 1: Whitlocke, IV. 368-369, and Ludlow, 736. Whitlocke does not here name himself as one of the sub-committee, though he names the others; but Ludlow names him distinctly, and Whitlocke's words afterwards (e.g., p. 376) show him to have been an active member.] The Kingship of Charles Stuart was, of course, an utterly forbidden idea in the deliberations. The idea of a revival of any form of the Protectorship, whether by the recall of Richard, or by the election of Fleetwood or Lambert, was equally forbidden, although there had been whispers of the kind about Wallingford House, and Richard was understood to be hovering near, in case he should be wanted. "Such a form of Government as may best suit and comport with a Free State and Commonwealth, without a Single Person, Kingship, or
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   494   495   496   497   498   499   500   501   502   503   504   505   506   507   508   509   510   511   512   513   514   515   516   517   518  
519   520   521   522   523   524   525   526   527   528   529   530   531   532   533   534   535   536   537   538   539   540   541   542   543   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Whitlocke

 

Ludlow

 

Committee

 

committee

 

released

 

Kingship

 

Footnote

 
forbidden
 

Government

 

November


treason

 
Wallingford
 

Fleetwood

 

Commonwealth

 
Council
 

Guizot

 

accused

 

Richard

 

General

 
Safety

procedure
 

uninteresting

 

consisting

 
referred
 

future

 

Constitution

 

Tichbourne

 
consent
 
subject
 

matter


Salway

 

whispers

 

equally

 
Lambert
 

Protectorship

 

recall

 

election

 

understood

 

hovering

 

comport


Single

 

Person

 

wanted

 

revival

 

distinctly

 

discussion

 

Stuart

 

Charles

 

utterly

 

deliberations